ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

201(1)/(1A) was passed in the case of Sri T.Janardhana Rao on 12.02.2013 for not making TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on the payments made by him to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her income tax return for the A.Y.2010-11 on 17.05.2013 admitting sale consideration of Rs.39,69,000/-, towards

R.VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE R. VENKATESWARA RAO,LINGAPALEM MANDAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

201 (1050 Sft.) Nizampet, 12.08.2009 7000/- 600/- P.Nos.64 & 64A in Quthbullapur Sy.Nos.298, 299,301 Mandal, R.R. & 402, US 24 Sq.yds District 4. F.No.302 (1060 Sft.) Nizampet, 24.08.2009 7000/- 600/- P.Nos.64 & 64A in Quthbullapur Sy.Nos.298, 299,301 Mandal, R.R. & 402, US 24 Sq.yds District Sale consideration of the land : Rs.6,72,000 Cost of acquisition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3) , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MEENA TANGUDU, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

1-4-1993.]\"\n8. From the plain reading of the section which was amended by the Finance\nAct, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, the assessee is entitled for deduction under this\nsection for one residential house in India. Accordingly, we find merit in the\narguments of the Ld. DR and direct the Ld. AO to compute the Capital gains\nand allow

NAGESH BABU VALIVETI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Bles & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Accpv7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/04/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

capital gains and duly paid taxes on the same. As a result, the assessee should not be treated as a defaulter, in light of the proviso to section 201(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI NARASIMHARAJU KANUMURI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.267/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Narasimharaju Income Tax, Kanumuri, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aerpk2717F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains” arising on the said transaction in their returns of income and paid the corresponding tax liability tax. As the “1st proviso” to section 201(1

ADABALA MANMOHAN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.135/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Mr. Adabala Manmohan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Vpnao 1959 G Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

capital gains. The assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source, therefore the assessee is liable for payment tax and interest U/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the 6 Act. The Ld. AO passed order U/s. 201(1)/201(1A) on 27/03/2018 which is after a lapse of five years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

201 ITR 442 and by theITAT, Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Sri Sekhar Gupta[2001]114 Taxmann 122. However 12 in order to claim the above capital gains separately for land and building, the assessee is required to give basic details like the original cost of acquisition of land and building, the year acquisition etc separately duly supported

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

201 ITR 442 and by theITAT, Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Sri Sekhar Gupta[2001]114 Taxmann 122. However 12 in order to claim the above capital gains separately for land and building, the assessee is required to give basic details like the original cost of acquisition of land and building, the year acquisition etc separately duly supported

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were passed offered the capital gain to tax in the year of execution of sale deed. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that once the seller of the property offered the income to tax then, as per the 1st proviso to section

PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were passed offered the capital gain to tax in the year of execution of sale deed. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that once the seller of the property offered the income to tax then, as per the 1st proviso to section

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

1. The learned Assessing Officer failed to issue notice u/s 143(2), a statutory notice ought to be issued to assume jurisdiction for conducting assessement proceedings, in the Page 2 of 26 ITA 209 of 2024 and others Konda Srinivasa Reddy Guntur absence of issue of such notice the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is null and void

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

1. The learned Assessing Officer failed to issue notice u/s 143(2), a statutory notice ought to be issued to assume jurisdiction for conducting assessement proceedings, in the Page 2 of 26 ITA 209 of 2024 and others Konda Srinivasa Reddy Guntur absence of issue of such notice the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is null and void

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

1. The learned Assessing Officer failed to issue notice u/s 143(2), a statutory notice ought to be issued to assume jurisdiction for conducting assessement proceedings, in the Page 2 of 26 ITA 209 of 2024 and others Konda Srinivasa Reddy Guntur absence of issue of such notice the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is null and void

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

1. The learned Assessing Officer failed to issue notice u/s 143(2), a statutory notice ought to be issued to assume jurisdiction for conducting assessement proceedings, in the Page 2 of 26 ITA 209 of 2024 and others Konda Srinivasa Reddy Guntur absence of issue of such notice the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is null and void

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. POOSARLA SATYAVATHI, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

LINTON PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Capital amounting to Rs. 89,67,000/- from various relatives of the Directors of the company, the Assessing Officer treated the share investments as ingenuine and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on protective basis as admitted by the assessee before the Investigation Directorate as her unexplained investment under section

ADISESHU GUNJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.661/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Adiseshu Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aehpg5014K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.662/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Venkayamma Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aetpg1987Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Shri Suseel Kumar Agarwal, Ar अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellants By : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)],Hyderabad-10 In 2

capital transaction u/s 201(1A) 20.6% of delay (Rs.) gains (Rs.) 201(1A) is (Rs.) (Rs.) calculated 4,80,000 98,880 19.02.2011 26.03.2018 85 84,048 1,82,928 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and argued that the assessee has not made the payment to the non- resident

VENKAYAMMA GUNJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.661/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Adiseshu Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aehpg5014K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.662/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Venkayamma Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aetpg1987Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Shri Suseel Kumar Agarwal, Ar अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellants By : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)],Hyderabad-10 In 2

capital transaction u/s 201(1A) 20.6% of delay (Rs.) gains (Rs.) 201(1A) is (Rs.) (Rs.) calculated 4,80,000 98,880 19.02.2011 26.03.2018 85 84,048 1,82,928 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and argued that the assessee has not made the payment to the non- resident

GADIRAJU JHANSIRANI,CHINNAMIRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Gadiraju Jhansirani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinnamiram. Ward-2, Pan: Bqjpg8177J Bhimavaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 54F of the Act. In response, the assessee’s Representative filed his objections which are extracted by the Ld. AO in his order at pages 3, 4 & 5 and the crux of the issues raised by the assessee in her objection before the Ld. AO is as under: “i) The amendment made in the Finance Act, 2014 in respect